# That patch I had...

Ron Stanions (chaeon@roc.clawpaw.com)
Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:52:37 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    The best reason I can think of for something like this is to create =
    puppets and allow them=20
    access to nearly all commands without having to perform major magic on =
    the moocore.
    It would in effect be a way to call -x verbs too.

    ----------
    From:  Seth I. Rich[SMTP:sir@po.cwru.edu]
    Sent:  Friday, January 19, 1996 9:07 AM
    To:  moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
    Subject:  Re: That patch I had...

    >> This code creates a builtin called sneak() (or it can be renamed).  =
    It=20
    >> allows you to input direct commands into a player (connected or=20
    >> non-valid), as though the player typed the command himself/herself.  =
    The=20
    >> form is: sneak(player, string);
    >
    >This code is almost exactly like the 'do_command()' patch that has been =

    >floating around.  It is incredibly useful... PAVEL PLEASE INSTALL THIS! =
    =20
    >Perhps it would be better if the command actually work directly on=20
    >unconnected people, instead of having to use $network...

    I can't see a use for this.  Why would a wizard want to cause another =
    player to invoke commands?  Can't the wizard write code that doesn't =
    require this sort of game-playing?  (How does this builtin handle the =
    callers() stack?  Does it lie to callers() as well?)

    Seth / Blackbriar
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    --
    Seth I. Rich - sir@po.cwru.edu                         no, no quote.
    Rabbits on walls, no problem.                          it's far too =
    cold.